1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 19 September 2022 b. Date Received: 19 September 2022 c. Counsel: Yes 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: a. Applicant’s Requests and Issues: The current characterization of service for the period under review is under other than honorable conditions. The applicant, through counsel, requests an upgrade to honorable, a narrative reason change, and a reentry eligibility code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge was substantively and procedurally defective. The applicant contends being falsely accused of the alleged offenses the applicant was charged with. The accusers were both discredited and the applicant was able to avoid the court-martial process through a Chapter 10, discharge in lieu of court-martial. The applicant completed years of honorable service and had a fine military career, which is demonstrated through the military records. The applicant has been successful in the endeavors. The applicant’s life is stable and the other than honorable characterization is no longer a proper characterization. There is a procedural defect in this case. In accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10 requires a Soldier to believe the Soldier is guilty of an offense which could result in the discharge from military service. Although the Charge Sheet clearly has charges which would allow for the separation of the applicant, there were no actual charges the applicant had mens rea (criminal intent) required for the separation. The applicant’s actions, which related to the courts-martial were mistakes, but not criminal mistakes. The applicant did not understand the effects of the Chapter 10 request at the time of the submission. The applicant was honest and worked with the chain of command. The chain of command did not reciprocate. This case should have been fixed by counseling and retraining. The command initiated a 15-6 Investigation. The applicant admitted from the beginning of the initial Criminal Investigation Division (CID) investigation, there were mistakes made. The applicant did, however, maintain innocence related to the actual criminal charges. The overzealousness of the investigating officer and the nature of the investigation can be seen in the applicant’s statement. This rush to judgment was evident and the standard of investigation was not upheld as to whether there is a preponderance of evidence to determine whether a crime has been committed. The applicant was given due process rights in responding to the charges, but the applicant was not ultimately able to dispute the allegations themselves because of the extended time between the events and the allegation. Counsel further details the contentions in an allied legal brief provided with the application. b. Board Type and Decision: In a telephonic personal appearance conducted on 12 June 2023, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. Please see Section 10 of this document for more detail regarding the Board’s decision. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 29 May 2018 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date and Charges Preferred (DD Form 458, Charge Sheet): On 27 November 2017, the applicant was charged with: Charge I: Violating Article 120, UCMJ, The Specification: The applicant did between 1 October and 30 November 2012, commit a sexual act upon C. H. by penetrating the vulva with the penis, by using unlawful force, to wit: pushing H. to the bed, forcibly removing the clothing, and holding H. down. Charge II: Violating Article 128, UCMJ: Specification 1: The applicant did between 1 and 28 February 2013, commit an assault upon C. H., by placing the hands around C. H’s neck, squeezing, and lifting C. H. off the ground with a means likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm. Specification 2: The applicant did between 1 and 31 July 2013, unlawfully strike C. H. across the face with the hand. Specification 3: The applicant did between 1 and 30 August 2013, unlawfully punch C. H. on the face with the hand. Specification 4: The applicant did between 1 and 30 June 2015, commit an assault upon C. S., by placing the hands around the neck and squeezing, with a means likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm. Specification 5: The applicant did between 1 and 30 June 2015, unlawfully strike C. S. on the face with an open hand. Specification 6: The applicant did between 1 and 30 June 2015, unlawfully bite C. S. on the breast with the mouth. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 13 February 2018 (3) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. (4) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (5) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 25 April 2018 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 31 October 2013 / 4 years / The AMHRR is void of any enlistment contract retaining the applicant on active duty after the most recent enlistment period. The applicant’s DD Form 214 reflects the applicant was extended at the request and for the convenience of the government. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / HS Graduate / 100 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 8 years, 3 months, 14 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 16 February 2010 – 30 October 2013 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Afghanistan (1 July 2013 – 6 March 2014); Iraq (26 May 2011 – 30 November 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, MUC, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ICM-CS, ASR, NATOMDL, CIB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Charge Sheet as described in the previous paragraph 3c. Military Police Report, dated 21 September 2014, reflects the applicant was cited for the offense of Fail to Yield Stop Intersection (on post) Traffic Accident (on post) on 15 September 2014, when the applicant failed to yield the right of way while traveling in a vehicle. The applicant’s vehicle was struck by another vehicle and both vehicles stuck a third vehicle. Law Enforcement Report – 1st Corrected Final, dated 1 March 2016, reflects on 26 February 2016, information received from Bell County Court House, revealed on 23 February 2016 the applicant’s family member filed for and received a Protective Order against the applicant for family violence. The order began on 23 February 2016 and ended on 23 February 2018. The applicant was prohibited from possessing a firearm and or ammunition. Law Enforcement Report – 1st Corrected Final, dated 21 July 2016, reflects information received from Killeen Police Department on 19 July 2016 revealed on 2 July 2016, the applicant was arrested for Driving While Intoxicated. The applicant consented to a breathalyzer test with the results of 0.121 BrAC. General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 24 August 2016, reflects on 2 July 2016, the applicant was apprehended by the Killeen Police Department for driving while intoxicated. The applicant was administered a Breath Alcohol Content test which registered at 0.121, a level above the legal limit set forth in Texas Penal Code, Section 49.04. Law Enforcement Report – Final, dated 26 August 2016, reflects an investigation established the applicant committed the offense of Assault Consummated by Battery (Domestic Disturbance) under Article 128, UCMJ (between 1 October 2010 and 13 February 2013) when the applicant’s family member reported multiple incidents of assault consummated by battery, to include pushing the individual onto the bed, covering the mouth, and ripping the clothes off; pushing the individual against the wall and lifting the individual by the neck off the ground, in a strangling manner. Memorandum, subject: Advice on Disposition on Court-Martial Charges [Applicant], dated 6 February 2018, reflects the Article 32(b), UCMJ, preliminary hearing officer found probable cause existed as to the alleged offenses and recommended the charges and their specifications be referred to a general court-martial. Commander’s Report of Disciplinary or Administrative Action, dated 20 February 2018, reflects the applicant’s charge of driving while intoxicated was dismissed on 18 January 2018 by the court because the applicant successfully completed a term of probation, Pre-Trial Intervention. Defense Motion to Compel Witness Production, dated 26 March 2018, reflects the applicant’s defense counsel moved for the court to order the production of three witnesses who were expected to testify to the untruthfulness of C. H. On 19 March 2018, the Defense submitted a request for production of the three witnesses and on 22 March 2018, Government denied the request. Law Enforcement Report – SIR (Category 3) – 1st Final Supplemental, dated 4 April 2018, reflects an investigation established the applicant committed the offenses of Rape under Article 120, UCMJ (between 1 October 2012 and 31 July 2015), and Assault Consummated by a Battery under Article 128, UCMJ (between 1 June and 31 July 2015); reported on 8 March 2016. The applicant’s adult dependent, reported being raped by the applicant. The individual reported the applicant engaged in sexual intercourse with the individual without consent. On two occasions, during consensual sex, the individual was strangled, pinned down, and slapped by the applicant. The applicant denied the allegations. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Behavioral Health Condition(s): (1) Applicant provided: None (2) AMHRR Listed: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; two DD Forms 293; Legal Brief; separation documents; Enlisted Record Brief, and third-party character reference. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has been successful in the endeavors and the applicant’s life has been stable. 7. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND POLICY REFERENCE(S): a. Section 1553, Title 10, United States Code (Review of Discharge or Dismissal) provides for the creation, composition, and scope of review conducted by a Discharge Review Board(s) within established governing standards. As amended by Sections 521 and 525 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 10 USC 1553 provides specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual trauma, intimate partner violence (IPV), or spousal abuse, as a basis for discharge review. The amended guidance provides that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, IPV, or spousal abuse, as a basis for the discharge. Further, the guidance provides that Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards will develop and provide specialized training specific to sexual trauma, IPV, spousal abuse, as well as the various responses of individuals to trauma. b. Multiple Department of Defense Policy Guidance Memoranda published between 2014 and 2018. The documents are commonly referred to by the signatory authorities’ last names (2014 Secretary of Defense Guidance [Hagel memo], 2016 Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Carson memo], 2017 Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Kurta memo], and 2018 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness [Wilkie memo]. (1) Individually and collectively, these documents provide further clarification to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. (2) Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. c. Army Regulation 15-180 (Army Discharge Review Board), sets forth the policies and procedures under which the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to review the character, reason, and authority of any Servicemember discharged from active military service within 15 years of the Servicemember’s date of discharge. Additionally, it prescribes actions and composition of the Army Discharge Review Board under Public Law 95-126; Section 1553, Title 10 United States Code; and Department of Defense Directive 1332.41 and Instruction 1332.28. d. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. (1) Chapter 3, Section II provides the authorized types of characterization of service or description of separation. (2) Paragraph 3-7a states an Honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. (3) Paragraph 3-7b states a General discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. (4) Paragraph 3-7c states Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge is an administrative separation from the Service under conditions other than honorable and it may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial based on certain circumstances or patterns of behavior or acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. (5) Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt. (6) Paragraph 10-8a stipulates a discharge under other than honorable conditions normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record during the current enlistment. (See chap 3, sec II.) (7) Paragraph 10b stipulates Soldiers who have completed entry-level status, characterization of service as honorable is not authorized unless the Soldier’s record is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization clearly would be improper. e. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of “KFS” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial. f. Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Reserve Components Enlistment Program, governs eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing of persons into the Regular Army, the U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard for enlistment per DODI 1304.26. It also prescribes the appointment, reassignment, management, and mobilization of Reserve Officers’ Training Corps cadets under the Simultaneous Membership Program. Chapter 4 provides the criteria and procedures for waiverable and nonwaiverable separations. Table 3-1, defines reentry eligibility (RE) codes: RE-1 Applies to: Person completing his or her term of active service who is considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army. Eligibility: Qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met. RE-3 Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted. RE-4 Applies to: Person separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable disqualification. This includes anyone with a DA imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years active Federal service. Eligibility: Ineligible for enlistment. 8. SUMMARY OF FACT(S): The Army Discharge Review Board considers applications for upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28. The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable, a narrative reason change, and a reentry eligibility code change. The applicant’s Army Military Human Resources Record (AMHRR), the issues, and documents submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The evidence in the applicant’s Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. The applicant, in consultation with legal counsel, voluntarily requested, in writing, a discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court- martial. In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense, and indicated an understanding an under other than honorable conditions discharge could be received, and the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veterans’ benefits. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial,” and the separation code is “KFS.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs the preparation of the DD Form 214, and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be as listed in tables 2-2 or 2- 3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation stipulates no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 601-210, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of “4.” An RE code of “4” cannot be waived, and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. The applicant contends being falsely accused of the alleged offenses; the witnesses were discredited; and the mistakes made by the applicant could have been corrected by counseling and rehabilitation. The applicant’s AMHRR does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends good service, including two combat tours. The Board will consider the applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of service according to the DODI 1332.28. The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. Eligibility for veteran’s benefits does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The applicant has been successful in endeavors and the applicant’s life has been stable. The Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. No law or regulation provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life after leaving the service. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. The third party statement provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. It recognizes the applicant’s good military service. 9. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional document(s): N/A. b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): Applicant, character witness, and counsel provided oral arguments in support of the contentions they provided in their written submissions and in support of their documentary evidence. c. Counsel / Witness(es) / Observer(s): Mr. J.P. (counsel), Mrs. A.G. (witness) 10. BOARD DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION: a. As directed by the 2017 memo signed by A.M. Kurta, the board considered the following factors: (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor, a voting member, reviewed the applicant's DOD and VA health records, applicant's statement, and/or civilian provider documentation and found that the applicant has the following potentially-mitigating diagnoses/experiences: Concussion with no LOC; PTSD. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes. The Board's Medical Advisor found the diagnosis of Concussion was made during active service. Service connection (0% due to fact applicant was separated with UOTHC) for PTSD establishes it occurred in service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The Board's Medical Advisor applied liberal consideration and opined that while liberal consideration was applied, there are no mitigating BH conditions. While the applicant has been diagnosed with Alcohol Abuse, uncomplicated, and PTSD (VA), neither of these conditions mitigates the misconduct given that these conditions do not affect one’s ability to distinguish right from wrong and act in accordance with the right. In a similar fashion, applicant’s diagnosis of mild TBI (Army) also does not mitigate the misconduct. Medical record review indicates that the applicant’s concussion was extremely mild, resolved quickly and required no comprehensive TBI treatment and did not affect occupational functioning. As such, there is no evidence indicating that applicant’s mild TBI resulted in applicant’ being unable to tell right from wrong and act in accordance with the right. (4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? No. After applying liberal consideration to the evidence, including the Board Medical Advisor opine, the Board determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD and TBI diagnoses outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – committing a sexual act using unlawful force, multiple instances of physical assault – for the aforementioned reasons. b. Response to Contention(s): (1) The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge needs changed. The Board considered this contention and determined that the applicant was properly separated under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial,” and the separation code is “KFS.” Army Regulation 635-8, Separation Processing and Documents, governs the preparation of the DD Form 214, and dictates the entry of the narrative reason for separation. After considering the totality of the evidence, the Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable. (2) The applicant requests a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. Soldiers processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 601-210, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of “4.” An RE code of “4” cannot be waived, and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans’ Service Organization. (3) The applicant contends being falsely accused of the alleged offenses; the witnesses were discredited; and the mistakes made by the applicant could have been corrected by counseling and rehabilitation. The Board considered this contention and noted the applicant’s request for a Chapter 10 discharge, in which the applicant indicated acknowledgement and guilt of “at least one of the charges” against the applicant, no desire for further rehabilitation, and no desire to perform further military service. The record indicates an acknowledgement of the applicant’s rights, and that applicant was advised by counsel at the time of the Chapter 10 request. The Board determined there was insufficient evidence of any arbitrary or capricious action taken by the Command, and that the discharge was proper and equitable. (4) The applicant contends good service, including two combat tours. The Board considered the totality of the applicant’s service record but determined the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant’s service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By the nature and severity of the applicant’s misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. (5) The applicant contends an upgrade of the discharge would allow veterans benefits. The Board considered this contention and determined that eligibility for Veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill, healthcare or VA loans, do not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. (6) The applicant has been successful in endeavors and the applicant’s life has been stable. The Board considered the applicant’s post-service conduct and determined the applicant’s post-service accomplishments do not outweigh the nature and severity of the basis for separation. c. The Board determined that the discharge is, at this time, proper and equitable, in light of the current evidence of record. The applicant has exhausted their appeal options available with ADRB. However, the applicant may still apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. The applicant is responsible for satisfying the burden of proof and providing documents or other evidence sufficient to support the applicant’s contention(s) that the discharge was improper or inequitable. d. Rationale for Decision: (1) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s characterization of service because, despite applying liberal consideration of all the evidence before the Board, the Board determined that the available evidence did not support a conclusion that the applicant’s PTSD and TBI diagnoses outweighed the basis for applicant’s separation – committing a sexual act using unlawful force, multiple instances of physical assault. The Board also considered the applicant’s contentions of impropriety and inequity and determined there was no evidence of sufficiently mitigating factors such that would warrant an upgrade. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. Therefore, the applicant’s UOTHC was proper and equitable as the applicant’s misconduct fell below that level of meritorious service warranted for an upgrade to HD. (2) The Board voted not to change the applicant’s reason for discharge or accompanying SPD code under the same pretexts, as the reason the applicant was discharged was both proper and equitable. (3) The RE code will not change, as the current code is consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation. 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason / SPD Code to: No Change d. Change RE Code to: No Change e. Change Authority to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL – Absent Without Leave AMHRR – Army Military Human Resource Record BCD – Bad Conduct Discharge BH – Behavioral Health CG – Company Grade Article 15 CID – Criminal Investigation Division ELS – Entry Level Status FG – Field Grade Article 15 GD – General Discharge HS – High School HD – Honorable Discharge IADT – Initial Active Duty Training MP – Military Police MST – Military Sexual Trauma N/A – Not applicable NCO – Noncommissioned Officer NIF – Not in File NOS – Not Otherwise Specified OAD – Ordered to Active Duty OBH (I) – Other Behavioral Health (Issues) OMPF – Official Military Personnel File PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder RE – Re-entry SCM – Summary Court Martial SPCM – Special Court Martial SPD – Separation Program Designator TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury UNC – Uncharacterized Discharge UOTHC – Under Other Than Honorable Conditions VA – Department of Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20220011747 1